Progress  and  Robbery. 


TWO  AMERICAN  ANSWERS 

HENRY  GEORGE. 

B§fc  THE  DEMI-COMMUNIST. 


BY 

J.  BLEECKEE  MILLER. 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


PRICE,  15  CENTS. 

Progress  and  Robbery: 


TWO  AMERICAN  ANSWERS 


HENRY  GEORGE, 

THE  DEMI-COMMUNIST. 


BY 

J.  BLEECKER  MILLER. 


READ  AT  MEETINGS  OF  THE  YOUNG  MEN'S  DEMO- 
CRATIC CLUB,  ON  OCTOBER  4th  and  nth,  1886. 


NEW  YORK: 

The  Cherouny  Printing  and  Publishing  Co.,  17-27  Vandewater  Street, 
1886. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1886,  by  J.  BLEECKER  MILLER,  in; 
the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


A  PROPERTY-OWNER'S  ANSWER. 


The  candidacy  of  Mr.  Henry  George  for  the  mayoralty  is 
in  one  way  peculiar  and  appears  to  me  to  demand  a  dif- 
ferent treatment  in  this  Club,  from  the  usual  mere  indorse- 
ment or  refusal  to  indorse. 

Mr.  George  is  known  personally  to  but  few  of  our 
citizens  ;  it  is  only  through  his  books  that  we  can  obtain 
information  as  to  his  character,  sympathies  and  intellectual 
ability.  As  most  of  the  members  of  this  Club  are  busy 
men,  and  yet  must  desire  to  be  informed  on  this  subject,  I 
thought  it  might  be  acceptable,  if  I  submitted  to  you  the 
result  of  my  examination  of  his  works,  especially  as  it  will 
consist  largely  in  quotations,  showing  his  opinions  on  the 
salient  points  of  his  theory. 

Mr.  George,  moreover,  represents  an  idea  ; — for  no  one 
can  deny  that  but  for  his  book  on  "Progress  and  Poverty"  he 
would  not  have  been  nominated  for  this  office.  He  is  not 
nominated  merely  because  it  is  believed  that  he  will  make 
a  good  administrative  officer,  but  because  it  is  hoped  that 
his  election  will  in  some  way  conduce  to  the  realization  of 
a  whole  theory  of  political  economy,  applicable  not  only  to 
our  City,  but  to  the  State  and  Nation.  That  this  theory  is 
of  sufficient  importance  to  deserve  the  careful  consideration 
of  this  Club,  is  evidenced,  I  consider,  by  the  general  inter- 
est which  this  nomination  of  its  representative  has  excited 
among  all  citizens. 


4 


Among  the  masses  of  the  people  every  one  knows 
that  a  large  number  of  persons  who  have  heretofore  voted 
the  Democratic  ticket  are  considering  whether  they  will 
not  vote  for  Mr.  George,  or  have  already  made  up  their 
minds  so  to  do;  it  is  the  same  with  the  Republicans. 

The  manner  in  which  he  has  been  nominated  is  another 
matter  which  should  attract  the  attention  of  this  Club.  He 
has  not  been  nominated  by  politicians,  but  by  a  great  class 
of  our  population  ;  he  represents  in  many  ways  a  revolt 
against  present  political  methods;  he  is  brought  forward  by 
a  combination  of  organizations  whose  entrance  in  the  field 
of  politics  has  long  been  looked  forward  to  by  our  citizens 
with  mingled  feelings  of  desire  and  dread  ;  he  has  been 
placed  at  the  head  of  a  force  whose  movements  statesmen 
and  politicians  have  long  been  studying  and  prognosticat- 
ing, and  which,  whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this  elec- 
tion, will  remain  a  power  for  good  or  evil  in  the  political 
horizon  for  a  long  time  to  come,  which  both  political  par- 
ties will  have  to  consider  in  their  calculations,  and  which 
may  be  so  strong  as  to  retain  permanently  the  elements 
that  may  be  attracted  to  it  from  either  party  in  this  cam- 
paign. What  theories  then  does  the  standard-bearer  of  this 
new  movement  represent  ? 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  Club  should  look  this  matter  in 
the  face  at  once,  and  consider  whether  the  principles, 
which  Henry  George  represents,  vary  from  the  teachings 
of  Democracy,  and  whether  there  is  anything  that  prevents 
a  Democrat  from  supporting  him  as  a  candidate. 

Even  if  these  questions  were  not  forced  upon  us  at  this 
time,  the  examination  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  ''Progress 
and  Poverty "  appear  to  me  to  be  a  fitting  subject  for  our 
careful  consideration,  whether  we  are  inclined  to  approve 
or  disapprove  of  them,  in  view  of  the  great  spread  which, 
this  book  has  attained  both  in  this  country  and  in  England 
In  this  country  over  a  hundred  editions  are  said  to  have 


5 


been  printed,  and  it  has  been  translated,  I  believe,  into  all 
the  languages  of  Europe.  Learned  societies  have  debated 
its  theories  and  clubs  have  been  formed  to  put  them  into 
practice.  Very  few  books  can  boast  of  the  reception  of  this 
work,— or  of  having  immediately  influenced  so  many  minds 
in  its  favor.  Another  reason  for  considering  this  work  is 
that  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  understand  the  full  and  cor- 
rect meaning  of  the  platform  adopted  by  the  Trade  and 
Labor  Organizations  of  New  York,  and  on  which  Mr.  George 
stands. 

The  first  section  condemns  "  the  system  which  compels 
men  to  pay  their  fellow-creatures  for  the  use  of  God's  gifts 
to  all,"  although  it  does  not  define  what  that  "  system  "  is; 
and  the  second  section  states  that  "  we  aim  at  the  abolition 
of  all  laws  which  give  to  any  class  of  citizens  advantages 
either  judicial,  financial,  industrial  or  political,  that  are 
not  equally  shared  by  all  others," — but  the  statutes  referred 
to  are  not  cited.  This  platform  was  adopted  after  the  re- 
ceipt of  a  letter  from  Mr.  George  in  which  he  promised 
conditionally  to  accept  the  nomination,  and  as  it  is  under- 
stood that  he  has  virtually  accepted  it,  we  can  go  safely  to 
his  works  to  ascertain  the  meaning  which  he,  at  all  events, 
puts  upon  this  language,  and  which  he  will  consider  him- 
self justified  to  follow  in  his  official  acts,  if  elected.  And 
no  one  can  deny  that  a  vote  for  Henry  George  will  be  con- 
strued as  an  indorsement  to  some  extent  of  his  theories. 
What  is  this  system  and  what  are  these  laws  which  are  to 
be  abolished  ? 

Mr.  George  has  certainly  been  straight-forward  and  con- 
sistent; in  his  four  books:  " Progress  and  Poverty,"  "Social 
Problems,"  "The  Irish  Land  Question"  and  "Protection  and 
Free  Trade,"  he  emits  no  uncertain  sound. 

As  the  Roman  Senator,  when  suddenly  awakened,  ex- 
claimed :  "  Carthago  delenda  est,"  so  Mr.  George  would,  I 
believe,  in  similar  circumstances  exclaim  in  the  final  words 


6 


of  his  closing  chapter  in  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade:"  "  Pri- 
vate property  in  land  is  doomed." 

It  is  this  cry  with  which  he  first  startled  the  world  in 
"  Progress  and  Poverty":  4 '  We  must  therefore  substitute  for 
the  individual  ownership  of  land  a  common  ownership.  We 
must  make  land  common  property,"  p.  295. 

In  his  ''Social  Problems"  he  says,  on  page  276:  " There  is 
no  escape  from  it.    We  must  make  land  common  property." 

In  the  "  Land  Question  "  he  states:  "  In  the  very  nature  of 
things,  land  cannot  rightfully  be  made  individual  property. 
This  principle  is  absolute,"  p.  38. 

It  is  therefore  this  system  of  private  ownership  of  land, 
and  the  laws  which  sustain  this  system,  which  the  delegates 
of  the  Trade  and  Labor  Organizations  of  New  York,  in  con- 
ference assembled,  declare  it  to  be  their  aim  to  abolish,  and 
as  the  first  step  in  that  direction,  they  have  nominated  Mr. 
George  for  Mayor  of  New  York  City.  And  no  one  can 
deny  that  if  this  was  their  object,  they  have  made  a  wise 
choice  in  their  standard-bearer.  He  gives  not  merely  an 
intellectual  assent  to  the  proposition,  but  no  one  can  doubt 
his  thorough  sincerity  and  fiery  zeal. 

His  work  entitled  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade,"  published 
in  1886  is  as  outspoken  in  its  denunciations  as  his  "  Progress 
and  Poverty,"  written  in  1877. 

In  the  former  he  says:  "  Property  in  land  is  as  indefens- 
ible as  property  in  man,"  (p.  349)  and  "the  robber  that 
takes  all  that  is  left  is  private  property  in  land,"  (p.  285); 
in  the  later  he  says:  "  If  chattel  slavery  be  unjust  then  is 
private  property  in  land  unjust,"  (p.  312).  In  his  "  Land 
Question"  he  says,  on  page  36:  "Here  is  a  system  which 
robs  the  producers  of  wealth  as  remorselessly  and  far  more 
regularly  and  systematically  than  the  pirate  robs  the 
merchantman." 

In  his  "Social  Problems"  he  says:  "Did  you  ever  see  a 
pail  of  swill  given  to  a  pen  of  hungry  hogs  ?  That  is  human 
society  as  it  is,"  (p.  102). 


7 


And,  indeed,  extravagant  as  this  language  may  sound, 
when  one  reads  the  sombre  pages  on  which  he  paints  the 
horrors  and  misery  of  poverty  and  contrasts  it  with  the  ex- 
travagance of  wealth,  in  language  and  with  pathos,  which 
has  been  rarely  surpassed,  one  feels  more  than  half  inclined 
to  adopt  Mr.  George's  plan  or  any  measure,  no  matter  how 
radical,  if  there  was  only  some  prospect  of  improvement. 

But  Mr.  George  does  not  confine  himself  to  an  appeal  to 
our  sentiments;  he  recognizes,  of  course,  that  no  matter  how 
readily  we  agree  as  to  the  misery  and  unjustifiable  inequality 
now  existing,  he  must  still  show  that  his  proposed  remedy 
will  lead  to  an  improvement,  and  also  that  it  can  be  adopted 
without  acting  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  justice. — Thus, 
he  says  in  his  "Progress  and  Poverty":  "If  private  prop- 
erty in  land  be  just,  then  is  the  remedy  I  propose  a  false 
one;  if  on  the  contrary,  private  property  in  land  be  unjust, 
then  is  this  remedy  the  true  one,"  (p.  299.) 

As  to  the  justice  of  ownership  of  things  other  than  land 
Mr.  George  is  pronounced;  in  his  "Social  Problems,"  he 
says,  on  pays  278:  "What  more  preposterous  than  the 
treatment  of  land  as  individual  property  ?  In  every  es- 
sential land  differs  from  those  things  which  being  the  pro- 
duct of  human  labor  are  rightfully  property.  It  is  the 
creation  of  God  ;  they  are  produced  by  man." 

It  is  on  this  distinction  that  he  bases  his  whole  system. 
In  his  chapter  entitled  "Injustice  of  private  property  in 
land,"  he  says  (p.  307):  "The  right  to  exclusive  ownership 
of  anything  of  human  production  is  clear.  No  matter  how 
many  the  hands  through  which  it  has  passed,  there  was  at 
the  beginning  of  the  line  human  labor — some  one  who,  hav- 
ing procured  or  produced  it  by  his  exertions,  had  to  it  a 
clear  title  as  against  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  which 
could  justly  pass  from  one  to  another  by  sale  or  gift.  But 
at  the  end  of  what  string  of  conveyances  or  grants  can  be 
shown  or  supposed  a  like  title  to  any  part  of  the  material 
universe  ?"  j 


8 


I  think  that  such  a  title  can  be  shown  to  every  piece  of 
land  in  the  State  of  New  York  fit  for  human  use. 

There  is  no  reason  for  the  division  between  personal  and 
real  property,  on  the  ground  that  the  former  is  the  pro- 
duct of  man  and  the  latter  created  by  God.  God  created 
personal  property  as  certainly  as  he  did  real.  As  Mr.  George 
says  in  his  "  Social  Problems  "  (p.  182):  "  Man  has  no  power 
to  bring  something  out  of  nothing.  He  cannot  create  an 
atom  of  matter." 

Man  can  fashion  things  after  they  are  detached  from  the 
soil,  and  combine  them,  so  that  they  will  affect  every  one 
of  our  senses  in  a  new  manner;  but  is  any  such  change 
greater  than  that  from  a  piece  of  the  forest  primeval  to  a 
Fifth  Avenue  lot  ? 

Did  it  require  no  labor  to  drain  the  swamps,  cut  the  trees 
and  blast  the  rocks  on  this  Island  of  Manhattan,  before  it 
assumed  its  present  form,  which  Mr.  George  and  his  friends 
are  now  content  to  assume  as  their  place  of  residence  ?  Was 
not  similar  work  required  on  every  field  in  the  State  ?  Ask 
a  farmer,  who  has  reduced  a  ten-acre  lot  to  an  arable  con- 
dition, or  the  builder,  who  has  blasted  the  rock  from  a  city 
lot,  whether  Mr.  George  is  correct  when  he  says,  in  his 
"  Social  Problems,"  on  page  85:  "When  land  increases  in 
value  it  does  not  mean  that  its  owner  has  added  to  the  gen- 
eral wealth." 

According  to  Mr.  George's  own  definitions,  land  can  be 
held  as  property,  because  it  is  no  more  fit  for  human  use 
without  human  labor,  than  any  piece  of  personal  property, 
and  it  is  as  senseless  to  say  of  one  part  of  the  material  uni- 
verse it  can  be  produced  by  man  without  God,  as  it  is  of  any 
other. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  George  does  not  overlook  this 
point  of  human  labor  connected  with  land,  but  he  says 
on  the  page  last  cited:  "It  is  a  title  only  to  the  improve- 
ments and  not  to  the  land  itself."    Should  he  not  then  also 


9 


say  the  same  thing  concerning  a  diamond,  for  instance, 
which  a  lapidary  has  cut  and  polished:  "All  I  can  justly 
claim  is  the  value  given  by  these  exertions.  They  give  me 
no  right  to  the  diamond  itself."  And  yet  Mr.  George  claims 
that  as  to  personal  property  one  can  have  ownership. 

Quote  to  the  same  farmer  or  builder  the  definition  of 
property,  as  given  in  this  chapter  under  consideration,  "As  a 
man  belongs  to  himself,  so  his  labor  when  put  in  concrete 
form  belongs  to  him,"  and  ask  him  whether  he  does  not  think 
that  the  definition  would  entitle  him  to  claim  property  in  the 
lot  as  much  as  in  the  wood  or  the  stone  which  he  removes 
from  it,  and  it  would  take  even  more  than  Mr.  George's  in- 
genuity to  get  a  negative  answer  from  him. 

We  are  not  now  arguing  the  question  of  compensation  for 
improvements,  which  we  will  consider  later,  but  examining 
the  correctness  of  the  distinction  which  Mr.  George  makes 
between  property  in  land  and  property  in  other  things.  If 
there  be  no  such  broad  distinction,  as  to  require  that  the 
former  should  be  taken  and  the  latter  left,  as  Mr.  George  so 
earnestly  demands,  the  question  of  compensation,  in  case 
we  should  take  the  land,  need  not  be  considered.  Unless 
this  radical  difference  be  proven,  he  might  with  equal  pro- 
priety discuss  in  his  book  the  compensation  to  be  given 
for  improvements  to  personal  property.  Having  thus,  in 
my  opinion,  shown  that  Mr.  George's  distinction  between 
personal  property,  as  the  product  of  man,  and  real  property, 
as  the  creation  of  God,  is  untenable,  and  that  consequently 
his  whole  theory  is  indefensible,  as  he  has  expressly  based 
it  on  this  claim  to  justice,  let  us  briefly  consider  the  ques- 
tion of  justice,  without  reference  to  Mr.  George's  book. 

How  long  has  this  work  been  going  on  in  this  State  and 
City  before  they  acquired  a  form,  which  induces  Mr.  George 
and  his  friends  to  take  up  their  abode  therein  and  even 
to  desire  to  have  an  interest  in  it  ?  Where  were  these  gen- 
tlemen or  their  ancestors  during  the  two  centuries  during 


10 


which  this  struggle  with  animate  and  inanimate  foes  was 
going  on  ?  Did  they  take  part  in  the  Indian  wars  ?  Did 
they  fight  at  Saratoga,  or  endure  the  horrors  of  the  seven 
years'  war  ?  Did  they  struggle  for  municipal  rights  against 
the  New  Netherlands  Company,  or  assist  in  planning  the 
Constitution  of  1777  ?  Were  not  their  ancestors  the  men 
who  staid  comfortably  in  Europe  until  America  was  pre- 
pared and  put  in  order — until  the  human,  animal  and  ma- 
terial foes  were  overcome,  and  now  that  a  passage  can  be 
made  in  a  week,  and  steerage  fares  cost  perhaps  twenty 
dollars — which  is  often  advanced  to  them  by  Americans — 
they  sail  over  here  and,  not  satisfied  with  our  broad 
naturalization  laws,  then  complain  :  "American  citizen- 
ship confers  no  right  to  American  soil,"  (Social  Problems, 
p.  146).  The  Report  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society 
(which  Mr.  George  cites  to  prove  the  existing  misery)  shows 
that  over  80  per  cent,  of  beggars,  whose  cases  were  in- 
vestigated, were  not  born  in  America. 

No  matter  how  absurd  this  claim  may  now  seem  to  us,  it  is 
one  deserving  of  careful  attention — in  fact,  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at:  our  Saxon  ancestors  once  did  the  same  thing 
and  thus  gained  their  English  homes.  It  was  the  Britons 
who  invited  the  Saxons  over  from  the  Continent  to  fight 
the  Picts,  and  supported  them  and  took  them  into  their  pay, 
until  they  finally  so  increased  in  number  that  they  took  pos- 
session of  the  land  of  their  former  employers.  Human  na- 
ture has  not  changed  very  much,  and  that  they  come  over 
in  Cunarders,  instead  of  in  dragon  ships  or  coracles,  does 
not  make  their  demand  for  the  land  of  the  former  inhabi- 
tants essentially  different.  I  believe  that  the  true  character 
of  this  movement,  which  is  just  beginning,  should  be  under- 
stood by  our  real  estate  owners  and  their  friends,  so  that 
the  contest  shall  be  a  fair  and  open  one,  and  that  the 
leaders  of  neither  side  shall  increase  their  forces  or  diminish 
hat  of  their  adversary  by  false  pretenses  of  justice,  disinter- 
estedness, etc. 


1 1 


If  one  wished  to  descend  to  his  style  of  language  could  not 
the  terms  "  robber"  and  "pirate"  be  flung  back  with  perfect 
propriety  ? 

I  happen  to  have  the  correspondence  of  James  Duane  (an 
ancestor  of  mine),  who  settled  the  township  of  Duanesburgh, 
in  Schenectady  County,  with  his  agents,  extending  from 
about  1770  to  1790.  I  would  like  to  show  that  correspond- 
ence to  anyone  who  claims  that  land  is  the  free  gift  of  God 
to*  man  and  can  be  used  like  air  and  water,  without  the  ex- 
penditure of  labor.  Mr.  Duane  spent  the  proceeds  of  a 
large  professional  income,  together  with  what  was,  in  those 
days,  considerable  inherited  property,  upon  building  roads, 
dams,  mills,  etc.,  through  that  region,  so  as  to  make  it  ac- 
cessible to  his  tenants;  he  advanced  them  money,  as  is 
shown  by  the  continual  begging  letters,  all  of  them  imply- 
ing confidence  in  his  generosity  or  gratitude  for  his  assist- 
ance; there  is  not  one  implying  any  dislike  or  harsh  feeling; 
a  great  part  of  the  letters  consist  in  explanations  by  the 
agent  why  the  various  tenants  did  not  meet  their  obliga- 
tions, or  requests  for  money  to  carry  out  improvements  or 
maintain  those  already  begun,  which  seemed  very  liable  to 
dilapidation.  After  representing  the  State  of  New  York  in 
every  Congress  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  and  serving 
as  first  Mayor  of  this  City  after  the  war,  until  the  Union 
was  formed,  and  then  as  first  Judge  of  the  United  States 
District  Court  of  New  York,  he  gave  up  the  latter  position, 
and  moved  up  there  and  devoted  himself  entirely  to  care 
of  this  land  until  his  death.  Would  he  have  done  this,  if 
his  descendants  were  to  have  had  no  interest  in  what  was 
then  a  wilderness  ?  And  if  he  had  not  done  it,  how  long 
would  that  land  have  remained  uncultivated  ? 

I  believe  that  the  history  of  any  portion  of  this  State, 
if  known,  would  be  very  much  the  same;  and  if  any  one 
will  consult  one  of  the  latest  books  on  the  history  of  land, 
"  The  English  Village  Community,"  by  Frederic  Seebohm 


12 


(London,  1883),  he  will  see  that  in  England  the  theory  of 
an  original  cultivation  of  the  land  by  a  community  of  inde- 
pendent farmers  (on  which,  on  page  331  of  "Progress  and 
Poverty,"  Mr.  George  bases  his  historical  argument)  is  a 
myth,  and  that  the  new  land  was  then  also  settled  by  some 
man  of  means  advancing  to  dependents  the  subsistence  and 
implements  required  during  the  hard  struggle  of  rendering 
land  arable.  Mr.  Seebohm  says  in  his  conclusion  (p.  438) 
on  the  village  land  system:  "  The  equality  in  its  yardlands, 
and  the  single  succession  which  preserved  this  equality,  we 
have  found  to  be  apparently  not  marks  of  an  original  free- 
dom, not  of  an  original  allodial  allotment  on  the  German 
mark  system,  but  of  a  settled  serfdom  under  a  lordship — a 
semi-servile  tenancy  implying  a  mere  usufruct,  theoretically 
only  for  life  or  at  will,  and  carrying  with  it  no  inherent 
rights  of  inheritance.  But  this  serfdom,  as  we  have  seen 
reason  to  believe,  was,  to  the  masses  of  the  people,  not  a 
degradation,  but  a  step  upward  out  of  a  once  more  general 
slavery.  Certainly  during  the  1200  years  over  which  the 
direct  English  evidence  extends,  the  tendency  has  been 
towards  more  and  more  freedom."  And  Mr.  Seebohm  im- 
plies that  the  same  facts  probably  existed  in  other  early 
agricultural  communities.  Mr.  George  based  his  views  solely 
on  what  he  saw  in  the  Great  West,  where  prairies  are  said 
to  be  almost  ready  for  the  plow  with  but  little  prelimin- 
ary labor;  and  upon  the  rapid  increase  of  real  estate  values 
in  California,  consequent  upon  the  discovery  of  gold.  From 
these  extraordinary  circumstances  he  has  evolved  a  theory 
which  he  believes  to  be  ol  general  application  and  to  which 
he  still  adheres,  although  his  subsequent  travels  and  educa- 
tion might  have  been  expected  to  have  widened  and  cor- 
rected his  views  on  this  plain  matter  of  history. 

He  says,  in  page  83  of  his  "Social  Studies:  "When  land 
increases  in  value  it  does  not  mean  that  its  owner  has  added 
to  the  general  wealth.   .  .  .  Increase  of  land  values  simply 


13 


means  that  the  owners,  by  virtue  of  appropriation  of  some- 
thing that  existed  before  man  was,  have  the  power  of  tak- 
ing a  larger  share  of  the  wealth  produced  by  other  people's 
labor."  However  applicable  these  remarks  may  be  to  other 
parts  of  the  country,  and  though  they  may  show  that  the 
laws  concerning  the  pre-emption  of  different  kinds  of  public 
lands  should  have  varied,  they  do  not  apply  to  this  State, 
with  its  comparatively  rugged  soil  and  thick  woods. 

What  have  real  estate  owners  done  for  the  State  of  New 
York  ?  Under  the  Constitution  of  1777,  only  those  in  the 
possession  of  land  could  vote,  and  to  the  Senate  only  land- 
owners were  admitted.  It  was  the  landowners  of  New  York 
who  enabled  that  State  to  meet  every  requisition  made  upon 
it  by  the  Continental  Congress  for  supplies,  men  and  money 
— the  only  one  of  the  thirteen  States  of  which  that  can  be 
said. 

After  forty  years,  the  landowners  peaceably  of  their  own 
accord  gave  up  this  privilege,  and  established  practically 
universal  suffrage,  through  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1826,  although  there  were  even  then  men  who  foresaw  the 
future.  Thus  Chancellor  Kent  said,  on  page  115  of  "Pro- 
ceedings:" 

"It  is  to  protect  this  important  class  of  the  community 
that  the  Senate  should  be  preserved.  It  should  be  the 
representative  of  the  landed  interest,  and  its  security  against 
the  caprice  of  the  motley  assemblage  of  paupers,  emigrants, 
journeymen  manufacturers,  and  those  undefinable  classes  of 
inhabitants  which  a  State  and  city  like  ours  is  calculated 
to  invite.    This  is  not  a  fancied  alarm. 

Universal  suffrage  jeopardizes  property,  and  puts  it  into 
the  power  of  the  poor  and  profligate  to  control  the  affluent." 

He  was  answered  by  Mr.  Root :  "  We  have  no  different 
estates  having  different  interests,  necessary  to  be  guarded 
from  encroachment  by  the  watchful  eye  of  jealousy  .  .  .  We 
are  all  the  same  estate,  all  commoners  .  .  .  These  powerful 


H 

checks  may  be  necessary  between  different  families  possess- 
ing adverse  interests,  but  can  never  be  salutary  among 
brothers  of  the  same  family,  whose  interests  are  similar," 
(p.  116.) 

What  would  have  been  the  action  of  that  Convention,  if 
Mr.  George's  language  had  been  heard  in  it  ?  Would  he 
and  his  friends  now  be  voters  ?  Does  he  subscribe  to  the 
honeyed  phrases  of  that  advocate  of  universal  suffrage,  or 
are  those  former  u  brothers  "  now  called  robbers  and  pirates, 
among  whom  must  be  included  of  course  Washington, 
Franklin,  Madison,  Jackson  and  probably  every  name  which 
Americans  have  been  taught  to  revere. 

I  would  pass  now  from  the  main  point  of  Mr.  George's 
theory,  assuming  that  it  has  appeared  that  Mr.  George's 
distinction  between  real  and  personal  property  is  baseless, 
and  that  property  in  the  one  is  as  sacred  as  in  the  other, 
and  that  consequently  the  question  of  compensation  for  im- 
provements on  land,  taken  by  the  public,  will  not  arise, 
because  the  land  may  not  be  taken.  But  in  order  to  give 
a  more  complete  view  of  Mr.  George's  theory,  let  us  con- 
sider for  a  moment  his  plan  for  compensation. 

He  assumes  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  improvements  to 
land,  for  one  of  which  only  compensation  is  to  be  made. 

He  says  on  page  308  of  "  Progress  and  Poverty:"  "  There 
are  improvements  which  in  time  become  indistinguishable 
from  the  land  itself.  Very  well ;  then  the  title  to  the  im- 
provements becomes  blended  with  the  title  to  the  land ; 
the  individual  right  is  lost  in  the  common  right." 

But  he  says  this  in  the  chapter  on  "injustice  of  private 
property  in  land,"  in  which  he  has  undertaken  to  show  that 
this  common  right  exists  according  to  the  principles  of 
justice;  and  yet  here  he  assumes  that  it  is  already  proven 
and  justified,  to  the  negation  of  the  right  even  of  compen- 
sation for  improvements. — This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the 
logical  mind  of  our  would-be  future  Mayor. 


i5 


But  what  are  these  ' '  indistinguishable  "  improvements; 
the  term  is  rather  vague.  Naturally  one  would  suppose 
that  it  would  include  the  results  of  the  first  attempts  to 
render  wild  land  fit  for  cultivation  or"  habitation  ;  such  as 
the  building  of  roads,  bridges  and  dams  in  agricultural 
lands,  and  clearing  away  the  stones  and  other  objects, 
which  impede  cultivation;  and  in  the  city,  levelling  the 
ground,  making  the  necessary  excavations,  etc. — I  do  not 
know  what  else  can  be  intended  by  these  "  indistinguish- 
able "  improvements. 

I  would  not  ask  Mr.  George  whether  this  is  fair  or  honest, 
but  I  would  ask  him  whether  it  is  consistent  with  giving 
compensation  for  any  improvements  ? 

Houses  and  barns,  I  suppose,  would  be  improvements,  if 
any  thing  would,  whose  value  is  distinguishable  from  that 
of  the  land;  but  why  should  the  labor  spent  on  the  erection 
of  the  building  be  compensated,  and  not  that  spent  on  the 
preparation  of  the  site  or  digging  the  foundation  ? 

The  real  object  of  this  distinction  between  these  two 
classes  of  improvements  appears  to  be  to  form  a  loop-hole 
through  which  Mr.  George  can  creep,  whenever  he  is 
pressed  on  this  point,  so  as  to  suit  the  wishes  of  his  inter- 
locutor. But  his  real  spirit  with  which  he  would  select  the 
"  indistinguishable"  improvements  is  shown  plainly  enough 
throughout  his  works.  He  says  in  his  "  Land  Question,"  on 
page  38:  "I  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  this  question  of  com- 
pensating landowners,  not  merely  because  it  is  of  great 
practical  importance,  but  because  its  discussion  brings 
clearly  into  view  the  principles  upon  which  the  land  ques- 
tion in  Ireland,  or  in  any  other  country,  can  alone  be  justly 
and  finally  settled.  In  the  light  of  these  principles  we  see 
that  the  landowners  have  no  rightful  claim  either  to  the 
tand  or  to  compensation  for  its  resumption  by  the  people, 
and,  further  than  that,  we  see  that  no  such  rightful  claim 
can  ever  be  created.  It  would  be  wrong  to  pay  the  present 
landowners  for  "  their"  land  at  the  expense  of  the  people." 


i6 

On  page  36  he  says:  "  Yet  we  are  told  that  this 

system  cannot  be  abolished  without  buying  off  those  who 
profit  by  it.  Was  there  ever  more  degrading  debasement 
before  a  fetish  ?" 

Moreover,  who  would  pay  for  these  improvements,  if  any 
were  paid  for  ?  It  would  be  one  landowner  who  would  pay 
the  other,  for  he  contemplates  the  abolition  of  all  other 
taxes.  He  says,  on  page  281  of  "Social  Problems:"  "Were 
land  treated  as  the  property  of  the  whole  people,  the  ground 
rent  accruing  to  the  community  would  suffice  for  public  pur- 
poses and  all  other  taxation  might  be  dispensed  with." 
Literally  his  greatest  advance  towards  compensating  the 
landowners  consists  in  robbing  Peter  to  pay  Paul. 

The  last  point  in  Mr.  George's  theories  to  which  I  think 
it  necessary  to  refer,  is  his  proposed  method  of  accomplish- 
ing his  great  reforms.  He  says,  on  page  364  of  "  Progress 
and  Poverty:"  "I  do  not  propose  either  to  pur- 
chase or  to  confiscate  private  property  in  land.    The  first 

would  be  unjust;  the  second,  needless  We  may 

safely  leave  them  the  shell  if  we  take  the  kernel.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  confiscate  land ;  it  is  only  necessary  to  confiscate 

rent  We  already  take  some  rent  in  taxation.  We 

have  only  to  make  some  changes  in  our  modes  of  taxation 
to  take  it  all."  The  naivete  of  these  remarks  is  refreshing. 
"  Taking  property"  has  a  bad  name  in  civilized  countries; 
even  professed  criminals  prefer  to  avoid  it,  and  to  speak  of 
divided  the  stuff,  the  boodle  or  the  swag.  But  if  Mr.  George 
thinks  that  anyone  is  deceived  by  this  use  of  terms,  it  shows 
that  he  has  great  simplicity  of  mind.  Of  course  this  would 
make  the  city  or  the  State  the  landlord,  with  the  accom- 
panying duties  and  responsibilities;  how  they  would  be  ful- 
filled it  is  needless  to  explain  to  gentlemen  so  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  present  workings  of  our  government,  as 
the  members  of  this  Club.  Mr.  George  says,  on  page  410: 
"  Government  would  change  its  character  and  would  be- 


17 

come  the  administration  of  a  great  co-operative  society.  It 
would  become  merely  the  agency  by  which  the  common 
property  was  administered  for  the  common  benefit." 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  the  money  is  to  be  spent  and 
the  benefits  to  be  derived  therefrom,  Mr.  George  gives 
glowing  pictures.  The  Reverend  Heber  Newton  summed 
the  matter  up  in  his  speech  at  the  so-called  Business  Men's 
Meeting  of  last  week,  when  he  said:  "We  are  going  to  clear 
the  way  for  the  millenium."  Mr.  George  describes,  in  his 
"  Social  Problems,"  on  page  323,  the  ordinary  farmer,  living 
"with  a  daily  average  of  two  or  three  hours'  work,  which 
more  resembled  healthy  recreation  than  toil;"  that  his 
family  "  should  be  able  to  visit  the  theatre,  or  concert  or 
opera  as  often  as  they  cared  to,  and  occasionally  to  make 
trips  to  other  parts  of  the  country  or  to  Europe." 

In  his  argument  in  favor  of  free  trade,  which  he  also  claims 
can  be  brought  about  only  through  the  appropriation  of  all 
land,  he  says,  on  page  334  of  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade:" 
"An  English  Democrat  puts  in  this  phrase  the  aim  of  true 
Free  Trade  :  *  No  taxes  at  all,  and  a  pension  to  everybody.' 

 If  this  is  Socialism,  then  it  is  time  that  Free  Trade 

leads  to  Socialism." 

Is  this  the  language  of  a  practical  man  ? 

We  have  not  time  here  for  me  to  undertake  to  show 
the  hopelessness  of  any  real  improvement  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  workingmen  through  these  theories  ;  I  would 
refer  you  to  the  criticisms  by  Mr.  John  Rae  in  "  Contem- 
porary Socialism  "  and  to  Mr.  Mallock's  book  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  but  I  would  call  your  attention  to  this  fact,  that  in 
his  earlier  work  he  promised  the  Millenium,  if  his  plan  were 
adopted.  Thus  he  says  in  "  Progress  and  Poverty,"  on  page 
295:  "  To  extirpate  poverty  we  must  therefore  substi- 
tute for  the  individual  ownership  of  land  a  common  owner- 
ship." But  in  his  later  book,  "Social  Problems,'7  he  says 
on  page  273:    "Yet  we  might  recognize  the  equal  right 


i8 

to  the  land  and  tyranny  and  spoliation  be  continued,  .  .  . 
I  fully  recognize  the  fact  that  even  after  we  do  this,  much 
will  remain  to  do." 

Would  it  not  be  well  to  wait  until  his  plan  is  complete, 
before  pulling  down  our  present  dwelling  ?  How  much 
more  "  will  remain  to  do,"  before  his  glowing  phantasies  are 
to  become  realities  ?  Does  this  uncertain  prophet  deserve 
to  be  followed  by  the  workingmen  into  a  conflict  with  the 
great  class  of  real  estate  owners  and  their  friends  ? 

I  would  further  call  attention  to  this  fact  that  Mr.  George's 
arguments  are  nothing  new.  They  bear  a  strong  resemblance 
to  those  of  Proudhon  in  his  book  entitled:  "  Qu'est  ce  que  la 
Propriete?"  to  which  he  answers:  "  Property  is  theft." 
Proudhon  claimed  that  property  in  movables  was  as  wrong 
as  property  in  land, — but  another  Frenchman,  Considerant, 
attempted  to  draw  the  same  distinctions  which  Mr.  George 
has  drawn  between  real  and  personal  property,  and  prove 
the  lawfulness  of  the  latter.  Mr.  George  and  Considerant 
also  use  very  much  the  same  arguments. 

Nowhere,  however,  that  I  can  find,  does  Mr.  George  cite 
Considerant;  although  he  is  evidently  familiar  with  French 
writers,  as  he  has  dedicated  his  "  Protection  and  Free 
Trade"  "to  the  memory  of  those  illustrious  Frenchmen  of 
a  century  ago,  Quesnay,  Turgot,  Mirabeau,  Condorcet,  Du- 
pont  and  their  fellows,  who  in  night  of  despotism  foresaw 
the  glories  of  the  coming  day."  Mr.  George  then  proceeds 
to  argue  in  favor  of  abolition  of  property  in  land, — 
without  mentioning  Considerant.  It  is,  of  course,  pos- 
sible that  Mr.  George  has  so  superficially  studied  this 
subject  that  he  did  not  hear  of  the  writings  of  that 
author,  and  that  the  resemblance  in  the  arguments  is 
purely  accidental.  It  is  as  probable  that  a  man  writing 
on  electricity  should  not  have  heard  the  name  of  Benjamin 
Franklin,  or  on  abolition  of  slavery  and  should  not  have 
heard  the  name  of  Abraham  Lincoln.    But  be  this  as  it 


19 


may,  there  is  nothing  new  in  Mr.  George's  arguments;  they 
have  been  promulgated  half  a  century  ago  by  unprincipled 
Frenchmen  in  a  dozen  ways,  and  the  Paris  Commune  was 
an  attempt  to  realize  them. 

If  we  draw  a  conclusion  as  to  Mr.  George's  character 
from  these  works,  can  we  conclude  anything  except  that  his 
mind  is  that  of  an  illogical,  unpractical  and  dangerous 
fanatic  ? 

At  all  times  progress  has  had  to  be  on  its  guard  against 
robbery.  We  have  seen  what  the  system  and  the  laws  are 
which  this  platform  demands  shall  be  abolished.  It  is  true 
that  the  Mayor  is  supposed  to  be  an  administrative  officer; 
but  cannot  the  Mayor  of  New  York  do  something  to  carry 
out  these  principles  ?  In  the  first  place  he  is  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment,  which 
has  the  power,  practically  without  limitation,  of  determin- 
ing the  amount  of  money  to  be  raised  each  year  by  taxa- 
tion. This  Board  consists  of  four  members;  one  of  them, 
the  President  of  the  Department  of  Taxes  and  Assessments, 
is  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  Should  a  vacancy  occur  in  that 
office,  the  Mayor  might  appoint  a  friend  entertaining  his 
views,  and  they  would  have  one-half  the  Board.  But  with- 
out that,  the  tax  levy  can  only  be  fixed  by  the  unanimous 
vote  of  all  the  four  members  on  each  item;  every  member 
can  veto  any  item,  unless  he  is  satisfied  with  the  appropria- 
tion as  a  whole.  Mr.  George  can,  therefore,  demand  that 
an  immense  sum  should  be  raised  next  year  by  taxation,  or 
he  might  by  refusing  to  agree  with  any  items  cripple  the 
entire  city  government.  That  his  power  would  be  immense, 
of  that  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

The  Mayor  also  appoints  the  Board  of  Taxes  and  Assess- 
ments, which  in  turn  appoints  Deputy  Tax  Commissioners, 
who  fix  the  valuation  of  real  estate  in  their  several  districts 
for  purposes  of  taxation. — (Sec.  14  of  the  Consolidation 
Act  of  1882.) 


20 

Even  if  Mr.  George  should  not  appoint  directly  to  these 
offices,  it  is  well  known  that  with  his  patronage  he  could 
probably  influence  their  appointment,  so  as  to  obtain  the 
positions  for  persons  in  sympathy  with  him,  and  every  one 
knows  how  easily  these  officials  could  change  the  present 
valuation  of  real  estate. 

Then  the  chief  practical  defense  of  house-owners  in  this 
city  comes  through  the  summary  proceedings,  which  are 
executed  by  the  Marshals  of  the  District  Courts.  These 
officers  are  appointed  by  the  Mayor,  and,  like  other  city 
officials,  removed  only  by  him.  If  he  should  nominate  some  of 
his  present  supporters,  fresh  from  reading  his  "  Social  Prob- 
lems," where,  on  page  155,  he  states  that  certain  landlords 
"are  of  no  more  use  than  so  many  great  ravenous,  destructive 
beasts,  packs  of  wolves,  herds  of  wild  elephants,  or  such 
dragons  as  St.  George  is  reported  to  have  killed,"  and  a 
complaint  should  be  brought  before  him  against  a  marshal 
for  neglect  of  duty  in  a  dispossess  proceeding, — what  atten- 
tion would  it  be  likely  to  receive.?  Behind  the  marshall,  for 
protection  of  all  property  stand  the  police  ;  what  sort  of 
men  will  Mr.  George's  Police  Commissioners  be  apt  to  ap- 
point ? 

We  see,  therefore,  that  a  Mayor  of  New  York,  with  Mr. 
George's  views,  might  do  much  to  carry  them  into  effect. 
Probably  in  no  position  in  the  world,  under  our  present  laws, 
could  more  be  done  in  this  direction.  It  is  indeed  rare  that 
an  enthusiast  of  that  type  has  a  chance  to  attempt  to  realize 
such  dreams,  and  Mr.  George  will  be  a  good  deal  less  sin- 
cere than  his  book  shows  him  to  be,  if  he  does  not  use  this 
wonderful  opportunity  to  the  utmost. 

I  submit,  therefore,  that  all  good  citizens  should  oppose 
his  candidacy. 

But  particularly,  as  Democrats,  what  ought  we  to  do  ? 

The  fundamental  principle  of  the  Democracy  has  always 
been  that  of  admiration  and  steadfast  adherence  to  the  Con- 


21 


stitution  and  laws  authorized  by  that  Constitution.  What 
have  they  to  say  on  this  subject  ? 

The  United  States  Constitution  declares  in  the  Fifth 
Amendment:  "Nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for 
public  use  without  just  compensation." 

We  have  seen  the  important  part  which  landowners 
played  in  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Section  6  of  the  New  York  State  Constitution  is  to  the 
same  effect,  and  Sec.  13  of  this  Constitution  says:  "All 
lands  within  this  State  are  declared  to  be  allodial,  so  that, 
subject  only  to  the  liability  to  escheat,  the  entire  and  abso- 
lute property  is  vested  in  the  owners,  according  to  the 
nature  of  their  respective  estates." 

Section  8,  of  II.  Revised  Statutes,  p.  719,  declares:  "Every 
citizen  of  the  United  States  is  capable  of  holding  lands 
within  this  State,  and  of  taking  the  same  by  descent,  devise 
or  purchase." 

This  indeed  is  no  new  doctrine;  it  was  imbedded  in  Magna 
Charta,  which  declared  th^t  no  freeman  shall  be  disseised 
■or  divested  of  his  freehold,  or  of  his  liberties  or  free  customs, 
but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land. 
Blackstone,  in  his  "Commentaries,"  Vol.  L,  p.  129,  declares 
that  the  three  absolute  rights  of  individuals  are:  "The 
right  of  personal  security,  the  right  of  personal  liberty,  and 
the  right  of  prrivate  property;"  and  Chancellor  Kent,  in 
Vol.  II.,  p.  1,  of  his  "Commentaries,"  uses  the  same  lan- 
guage. Elliott's  "Constitutional  Debates,"  on  the  adoption 
of  the  United  States  Constitution  in  the  different  States  are 
full  of  allusions  to  the  protection  of  property  in  land,  which 
this  Constitution  would  afford. 

That  our  Constitution  and  laws  recognize  no  principle  as 
more  fundamental  and  sacred  than  that  of  private  property 
in  land  is  therefore  undeniable. 

But  Mr.  George  would  perhaps  say  that  he  does  not 
demand  that  the  title  to  land  should  be  taken,  but  only  the 
rent,  and  therefore  that  he  does  not  take  property. 


22 


He  might  claim  that  property  meant  the  thing  which  is 
the  object  of  ownership  and  not  the  aggregate  of  rights 
which  an  owner  has  over  the  thing,  so  that  property  was  not 
taken  when  an  owner  was  deprived  of  one  of  these  essential 
rights,  such  as  that  of  rent,  but  only  when  the  thing  itself 
was  removed  or  interfered  with.  But  the  recent  long 
line  of  cases  in  the  suits  against  the  Elevated  Railroads 
have  settled  in  this  State  that  property  means  the  aggre- 
gate of  rights  and  not  the  thing  owned.  Probably  the  most 
recent  decision  is  that  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  matter 
of  Jacobs  (98  N.  Y.,  105). 

"The  constitutional  guaranty  that  no  person  shall  be 
deprived  of  his  property  without  due  process  of  law  may 
be  violated  without  the  physical  taking  of  property  for 
public  or  private  use.  Property  may  be  destroyed,  or  its 
value  may  be  annihilated  .  .  .  any  law  which  destroys  it 
or  its  value,  or  takes  away  any  of  its  essential  attributes, 
deprives  the  owner  of  his  property." 

However,  Mr.  George  woulcUhardly  dare  to  make  this 
contention,  in  view  of  his  oft  repeated  use  of  the  term 
property,  in  its  correct  sense,  as  defined  by  the  courts;  thus, 
on  page  343,  of  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade,"  he  says:  "The 
only  way  to  abolish  private  property  is  by  the  way  of  taxa- 
tion.   That  way  is  clear  and  straightforward." 

Since  then  this  direct  conflict  exists  between  Mr.  George's 
opinions  and  the  "aims"  of  his  platform  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  on  the  other,  and  since 
it  is  also  by  no  means  clear  which  of  these  "aims"  are  at 
once  to  be  put  into  practice,  and  since  the  peculiar  boast 
of  the  Democracy  has  always  been  its  conservative  strict 
adherence  to  the  Constitution,!  do  not  see  how  any  Democrat 
can  support  Mr.  George. 

However,  I  do  not  see  how  Mr.  George  can  accept  this 
office,  if  elected.  How  can  he  swear  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution and  laws  of  this  State  as  they  now  exist,  while  he 


23 


maintains  the  views  expressed  in  his  works  ? — No  matter 
how  he  may  hedge  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  I  do  not 
believe  that  he  can,  if  he  would,  free  his  mind  from  the 
passions  which  these  years  of  controversy  have  engendered, 
and  see  to  the  administration  of  these  laws,  so  abhorrent  to 
him,  according  to  their  letter  and  their  spirit.  If  he  were  run- 
ning for  the  Constitutional  Convention,  this  objection  would 
not  exist;  but  to  attempt  to  fill  the  position  of  Mayor, without 
abolishing  our  present  system,  but  according  to  the  true 
meaning  of  the  laws  now  in  force,  ought  to  be  thoroughly 
abhorrent  to  him,  if  he  means  half  of  what  he  has  said.  — 
I  can  not  imagine  his  taking  that  oath,  without  mental 
reservations,  which  would  make  it  practically  perjury; — and 
I  believe  that  those  who  approve  of  his  making  such  an 
attempt  and  aid  him  in  it,  by  their  votes,  are  not  much 
better  than  accomplices  before  the  act. 

Finally,  I  wish  to  state  that  these  remarks  have  been 
made  with  no  feeling  of  hostility  to  the  workingmen.  In  my 
humble  way  I  have  for  years,  by  various  publications,  done 
what  I  could  to  induce  them  to  go  into  politics;  I  believe  it 
is  a  necessary  movement,  and  in  time  will  be  a  salutary 
one.  But  I  object  to  this  great  movement,  the  most  im- 
portant one  which  will  probably  occur  in  our  generation, 
instead  of  being  utilized  in  a  practical  manner  for  the  bene- 
fit of  all,  being  turned  aside  to  attack  one  class  of  our 
fellow-citizens.  Henry  George  says,  in  his  "  Progress  and 
Poverty,"  (p.  282):  "  Nor  in  the  struggle  of  endurance  must 
it  be  forgotten  who  are  the  real  parties  pitted  against  each 

other  It  is  laborers  on  the  one  side  and  the  owners 

of  land  on  the  other."  This  will  not  be  the  first  of  these 
conflicts.  The  history  of  the  Dark  Ages — of  the  13th,  14th 
and  15th  centuries — is  red  with  the  blood  spilt  in  the  cities 
of  Europe  in  the  fights  between  the  trade  unions  and 
the  real  estate  owners;  every  man  who  reads  that  history 
must  feel  it  his  duty  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  the 
kindling  of  such  a  conflict  here. 


24 


While  we  can  all  hope  that  the  contingency  of  such  fear- 
ful contests  is  still  remote,  we  must  recognize  that  even  this 
peaceful  strife  at  the  polls  of  these  two  great  classes  pre- 
vents their  uniting  their  forces  and  righting  the  many- 
wrongs  which  they  jointly  suffer.  I  do  not  say  that  this 
contest  has  been  engineered  by  the  railroad  kings,  poli- 
ticians and  monopolists,  who  thrive  in  the  present  disorgan- 
ized state  of  society,  but  I  do  say  that  nothing  could  have 
happened  more  opportunely  for  them,  and  that  if  they  can 
only  fan  the  flame,  they  have  gained  a  new  lease  of  life. 
Moreover,  with  our  system  of  government  the  danger  of 
diffusion  of  these  ideas  among  persons  who  have  not  oppor- 
tunity or  ability  to  thoroughly  examine  them  and  see  their 
fallacy,  presents  a  great  danger,  which  all  good  citizens 
should  oppose.  Mr.  George's  arguments  apply  to  personal 
property  as  well  as  to  real;  a  movement  started  against  the 
latter  cannot  be  stopped  there;  in  all  his  books  there  is  no 
formula  that  will  lay  the  evil  spirits,  if  they  once  break 
loose.  The  arguments  of  his  master,  Proudhon,  he  cannot 
refute.  He  is  a  preacher  of  Communism,  although  he  wants 
to  stop  half  way.  It  is  the  interest  of  all  owners  of  prop- 
erty, real  or  personal,  to  oppose  to  the  utmost  the  spread 
of  the  influence  of  this  demi-communist. 


A  WORKINGMAN'S  ANSWER. 


N  Saturday  I  received  a  note  from  the  gentleman  who 


at  our  meeting  on  last  Monday  most  zealously  sus- 
tained Mr.  George's  theories,  in  which  he  stated  that  I 
had  at  that  time  not  represented  the  workingmen's  side  of 
the  question,  and  that  consequently  my  argument  was  un- 
democratic. I  considered  that  I  had  answered  Mr.  George 
when  I  had  shown  that  his  proposal  was  unjust. 

However,  without  admitting  that  the  Democratic  party  is 
exclusively  the  party  of  the  workingmen,  I  intend  this  even- 
ing to  consider  Mr.  George's  candidacy  from  the  stand-point 
of  a  workingman,  and  to  ascertain  for  what  reasons  they 
ought  to  support  him. — I  will  assume  that  the  justice  of  his 
propositions  is  proven,  and  that  the  only  question  is  one  of 
expediency,  namely,  what  the  workingmen  would  gain  if  his 
theories  as  announced  in  his  platform  were  put  into  practice. 

The  best  expression  of  the  present  wishes  of  the  working- 
men  that  I  know  of,  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitutions  of 
the  various  trades  unions.  One  of  the  most  prominent 
unions  is  Typographical  Union  No.  6;  §  3  of  its  Constitution 
reads  :  "  The  objects  of  this  union  shall  be  the  maintenance 
of  a  fair  rate  of  wages,  the  encouragement  of  good  working- 
men,  and  the  employment  of  every  means  which  may  tend 
to  the  elevation  of  printers  in  social  life."  The  Constitution 
of  the  Cigar  Makers  Union  begins  :  "  Whereas  it  is  the  duty 
of  every  worker  to  unite  with  his  fellow  worker  to  secure  a 
fair  compensation  for  his  labor  ;  to  elevate  the  condition  of 


20 


the  lowest  paid  worker  to  the  standard  of  the  highest  ;  to 
provide  for  the  sick  members  and  bury  the  dead." 

The  Furniture  Workers  Union  has  Jhe  following  objects  : 

a)  The  maintenance  and  increase  of  wages,  b)  The 
reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor.  c)  The  assistance 
during  strikes  and  lockouts,  d^  The  assistance  while 
unemployed,  e)  The  assistance  during  sickness,  f) 
The  assistance  in  case  of  death,  g)  The  assistance  in 
case  of  loss  of  tools,  h)  The  rendering  of  legal 
assistance  in  claims  against  employers,  i)  The  in- 
struction by  lectures. 

The  Cigar  Makers  International  Union  of  America  is 
formed  to  improve  themselves  :  "  By  prevailing  upon  the 
Legislature  to  secure  first  the  prohibition  of  child  labor 
under  14  years  of  age  ;  the  establishment  of  a  normal  day's 
labor  to  consist  of  not  more  than  8  hours  per  day  for  all 
classes  ;  the  abolition  of  the  truck  system,  tenement  house 
cigar  manufacture,  and  the  system  of  letting  out  by  contract 
the  convict  labor  in  prisons  and  reformatory  institutions  ; 
the  legalization  of  trade  unions  and  the  establishment  of 
bureaus  of  labor  statistics." 

To  these  objects  in  the  main,  no  fair-minded  citizen  can 
object  ;  let  us  see  what  Mr.  George  will  do  towards  their 
realization. 

The  practical  change  proposed  in  his  platform  is  to  tax 
real  estate  without  reference  to  the  improvements,  so  that 
no  one  could  afford  to  hold  unimproved  land  but  would  be 
compelled  to  build  immediately.  Without  stopping  now  to 
consider  the  practicability  of  this  scheme,  let  us  assume  that 
it  has  been  done,  and  that  a  large  number  of  houses  suited 
for  dwellings  and  manufactures  and  offices  have  been  built, 
so  as  to  reduce  rents  throughout  the  city  very  materially, 
or  even  to  a  mere  nominal  sum.  What  advantage  would 
that  be  to  the  workingmen  ? 


27 


I  am  an  employee  of  a  large  corporation  ;  if  the  rent  of 
its  various  offices  were  reduced  or  entirely  abolished,  my 
pay  would  in  no  wajj  be  increased, — very  possibly  I  might 
never  hear  of  it  ;  I  believe  the  men  employed  in  any 
business  in  this  city  would  say  the  same  thing. 

But  if  the  rent  of  my  apartment  were  reduced  very  material- 
ly, it  would  benefit  me, if  it  was  done  in  my  case  alone;  but  if 
it  were  done  throughout  the  city,  very  soon  my  employers 
would  say:  "We  hear  you  no  longer  pay  rent;  that  is 
probably  so  much  of  your  salary  ;  we  intend  to  reduce  your 
salary  that  much,  and  if  you  are  not  satisfied,  we  can  now 
get  a  man  of  equal  ability  for  that  pay, as  other  men  in  your 
branch  have  also  to  pay  no  rents."  Even  if  all  employers 
did  not  do  this  at  once,  some  would  certainly  begin  it,  and 
then  the  others  would  be  forced  to  follow  suit,  or  be  under- 
sold or  driven  out  of  the  business.  I  believe  the  men  em- 
ployed in  any  trade  or  manufacture  in  this  city  would  say 
that  this  would  surely  happen.  Morover,  where  would  the 
money  come  from  with  which  these  houses  are  to  be  built  ? 
Would  it  not  be  taken  out  of  the  trades  and  manufactures, 
where  it  is  now  invested,  because  it  receives  a  larger  return, 
and  would  not  all  these  other  trades  and  manufactures,  and 
the  men  employed  therein  suffer  ? 

Or  if  the  large  amount  of  money  which  it  is  expected  will 
be  immediately  raised  by  taxation  were  wisely  expended  for 
beneficent  public  purposes,  and  heat  and  light  were  fur- 
nished without  charge  to  all  citizens,  would  not  employees 
soon  hear  similar  remarks  about  the  saving  which  they  were 
now  making  in  the  matter  of  light  and  fuel,  and  would  not 
one  employer  after  the  other  make  a  consequent  reduc- 
tion in  wages,  as  stated  above  in  the  case  if  rents  were 
reduced  ? 

Would  the  workingmen  not  be  in  exactly  the  position  in 
which  they  are  to-day  ?  Would  not  this  money  expected 
for  these  public  benefits  also  attract  workingmen  from 


28 


other  cities,  and  so  leave  this  same  old  contest  between 
labor  and  capital?  Would  there  not  be  the  same  necessity 
for  the  Declaration  of  the  Principles  of  the  Knights  of  La- 
bor of  North  America,  beginning  :  "The  alarming  develop- 
ment and  aggression  of  aggregated  wealth,  which,  unless 
checked,  will  inevitably  lead  to  the  pauperization  and  hope- 
less degradation  of  the  toiling  masses,  render  it  imperative, 
if  we  desire  to  enjoy  the?  blessings^of  life,  that  a  check 
should  be  placed  upon  its  power  and  upon  unjust  accumula- 
tion, and  a  system  adopted  which  will  secure  to  the  laborer 
the  fruits  of  his  toil  "  ? 

Would  not  the  fight  against  over-work,  child-labor,  the 
truck-system,  and  all  the  acknowledged  evils  of  the  laissez- 
faire  system  have  to  be  begun  again,  just  where  they  are 
now  ? 

I  submit  therefore  that  this  movement,  as  defined  in  their 
platform,  can  not  accomplish  the  ends  which  workingmen 
desire  and  which  would  really  benefit  them;  the  amount  of 
their  pay  would  continue  to  be  regulated  by  the  most  un- 
scrupulous and  hard-hearted  man  among  the  class  of  their 
employers. 

But  I  believe  that  this  movement  will  do  more  than  this; 
I  believe  that  it  will  very  seriously  injure  the  real  interests 
of  the  workingmen  and  indefinitely  postpone  the  realization 
of  all  practical  plans  for  the  improvement  of  their  condi- 
tion. In  the  first  place,  they  are  wasting  their  energies  in 
electing  an  administrative  officer,  instead  of  trying  to  secure 
representatives  in  the  legislature,  who  would  secure  the 
changes  on  our  statute  book,  necessitated  by  our  transition 
from  a  purely  agricultural  state  to  one  having  large  manu- 
facturing interests.  No  one  knows  what  ought  to  be  pro- 
posed in  this  matter  so  well  as  the  workingmen  themselves 
and  unless  they  send  representatives,  their  just  demands 
will  not  be  attended  to.  The  same  thing  applies  to  our 
local  legislature,  the  Board  of  Aldermen;  the  workingmen 


29 


have  announced  their  intention  of  not  paying  attention  to 
these  offices,  but  of  concentrating  their  efforts  on  the 
Mayor.  It  is  already  evident  that  both  Aldermen  and  As- 
semblymen are  to  be  of  the  same  class  as  in  former  years; 
that  they  will  be  the  tools  of  politicians  and  corporations, 
as  in  former  years  ;  and  that  the  workingmen  will  get  as 
much  benefit,  as  they  have  got  in  former  years.  But  this  is 
not  all  the  mischief :  the  demands  which  the  workingmen 
make  for  shorter  hours,  etc.,  can  be  conceded  to  them  only 
at  a  certain  loss  and  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  other  classes  of 
the  community.  Hitherto  their  demands  have  met  generally 
with  fair  popular  support;  for  instance  the  early  closing 
movement.  But  let  the  workingmen  adhere  to  Mr.  George's 
theories  and  they  will  antagonize  a  very  large  class  of  the 
people  of  this  State,  and  drive  them  to  unite  with  the  em- 
ployers, so  that  the  demands  of  the  workingmen  will  meet 
with  a"Lvery  different  reception,  after  a  few  campaigns  such 
as  this  promises  to  be. 

That  Mr.  George's  theories  are  not  actually  going  to  be 
put  into  practice,  every  practical  man  knows;  "  the  states- 
manship of  the  plough,"  which,  as  Governor  Seymour  said, 
guides  this  country,  forbids  it  ;  the  whole  movement  is  too 
much  against  the  American  traditions;  the  Churches  will 
all  be  against  it;  the  influence  which  a  combination  of  em- 
ployers and  real  estate  owners  would  bring  to  bear,  if  once 
aroused,  with  all  their  friends,  would  simply  overwhelm  the 
trades-unions.  Moreover,  Mr.  George's  theories,  as  soon 
as  they  are  brought  to  light  and  their  practical  application 
considered,  will  cause  so  many  new  theorists  to  spring  up 
with  equally  visionary  plans,  who  will  oppose  each  other, 
so  that  all  will  cease  to  have  attractions  for  any  large  num- 
ber of  citizens  sufficiently  strong  to  hold  them  together. 

I  do  not  therefore  think  that,  admitting  that  the  argu- 
ment which  I  first  advanced  this  evening  were  false,  and 
that  the  workingmen  could  realize  benefits  from  this  plan, 


30 


that  there  is  the  remotest  prospect  of  its  being  put  into 
operation.  But  I  do  think  that  it  will  immediately  excite 
hostility  among  a  very  large  and  important  class  and  that 
the  real  reforms  needed  by  workingmen  will  thereby  be  de- 
layed. 

The  experience  of  Europe  during  the  last  century  shows 
the  certain  futility  of  this  movement.  The  first  man  to  un- 
dertake to  put  these  theories  into  practice  was  Babceuf,  at 
the  close  of  the  first  French  Revolution  ;  Proudhon  was  the 
first  to  undertake  to  justify  it,  and  Considerant  (in  1837),  a 
pupil  of  Fourier,  modified  the  doctrine  so  that  it  should  only 
apply  to  land,  and  not  to  personal  property. 

How  closely  Mr.  George  has  followed  these  authors  a 
few  citations,  showing  the  main  points  of  their  theories,  will 
demonstrate. 

To  begin  with  the  title  page  of  Mr.  George's  first  book, 
which  reads  :  "  Progress  and  Poverty  :  an  Inquiry  into  the 
cause  of  industrial  depressions,  and  of  increase  of  want  with 
increase  of  wealth" ;  the  article  cited  in  note  A,  of  Mr.  Con- 
siderant's  Socialism  (published  in  1849)  is  entitled:  *'  Of 
the  causes  of  the  increase  of  misery  in  proportion  to  the  de- 
velopment of  riches." — This  article  states  the  proposition  as 
follows  :  "  If  there  is  a  social  phenomenon  worthy  of  at- 
tention, it  is  certainly  that  of  the  increase  of  misery  among 
the  laboring  classes  in  proportion  to  the  progress  of  general 
wealth,  and  that  other  phenomenon  not  less  extraordinary 
and  always  accompanying  the  latter,  of  this  misery  existing 
most  intensely  among  the  most  industrious  and  free  nations, 
like  England,  France  etc." 

Mr.  George  says  in  his  Progress  and  Poverty,  p.  7  :  "It 
is  at  last  becoming  evident  that  the  enormous  increase  in 
productive  power  has  no  tendency  to  extirpate  poverty. 
It  is  in  the  older  and  richer  sections  of  the  Union  that  pau- 
perism and  distress  among  the  working  classes  are  becoming 
most  painfully  apparent."    (p.  9.) 


3i 


Mr.  Considerant  impressively  says  :  "  The  Sphinx  is  the 
people  ;  the  terrible  enigma  is  the  problem  of  the  times." 
Mr.  George  says  on  yage  9 :  "It  is  the  riddle  which  the 
Sphinx  of  fate  puts  to  our  civilization,  and  which  not  to 
answer  is  to  be  destroyed." 

In  Considerant's  other  work,  entitled  "  Destinee  Sociale' 
(1837)  he  says  on  page  250 :  "It  is  then  proved  by  facts 
that  the  proletariat  and  pauperism  increase  in  epochs  of  civi- 
lization with  population  and  more  rapidly  than  it,  and  as 
the  direct  cause  of  the  growing  progress  of  industry." — He 
repeats  the  same  statement  in  various  forms,  as  often  as 
Mr.  George  does. — We  see  therefore  that  the  problem  which 
these  two  writers  propose,  is  the  same. 

As  to  the  remedy,  they  also  agree  and  Mr.  Considerant 
says,  in  his  work  of  1837  :  "The  whole  land  must  be  culti- 
vated as  the  land  of  one  man."  In  the  work  of  Mr.  Con- 
siderant entitled  "Socialism"  he  says  on  page  107  ;  "  Rent 
of  land  is  a  feudal  privilege  which  ought  to  go  to  rejoin  its 
elder  brethren  in  the  great  ditch  of  justice  of  the  Nations 

and  Revolutions         There  are  among  Socialists  those  who 

would  derange  nothing  in  society  ;   who  do  not  call  us  to 
live  in  common,  to  abandon  that  which  we  have,  to  change 
our  manner  of  life  for  something  we  know  not  what . . . 
Suppose  that  these  socialists  should  come  to  power  and  this 
should  be  then  law." 

Mr.  George  says  on  page  364  of  Progress  and  Poverty  : 
"  It  is  not  necessary  to  confiscate  land ;  it  is  only  necessary 
to  confiscate  rent." 

Mr.  Considerant  does  not  enter  to  any  extent  into  an 
attempt  to  show  the  justice  of  this  appropriation  of  land  by 
the  public  ;  so  Mr.  George  has  to  take  up  Proudhon,  for 
this  part  of  the  argument,  and  repeats  in  various  forms  the 
latters  three  arguments. 

Firstly  Mr.  Proudhon  says  in  his  book  on  Property  (I  cite 
from  the  translation  published  by  Tucker,  Princeton,  Mass., 


32 


1876) :  "  How  can  the  supplies  of  nature,  the  wealth  crea- 
ted by  Providence,  become  private  property  ?  We  want 
to  know  by  what  right  man  has  appropriated  wealth  which 
he  did  not  create,  and  which  nature  gave  to  him  gratuitously? 
Who  made  the  land?  God.  Then  proprietor,  retire*"  (p.  89). 
Mr.  George  says  in  Social  Problems  (p.  278)  :  "  What  more 
preposterous  than  the  treatment  of  land  as  individual 
property         It  is  the  creation  of  God." 

Proudhon's  second  point  is  that  universal  consent  gives  no 
justification  to  property,  he  says  (p.  311  in  Theorie  de  l'lm- 
port) :  "  The  earth  furnishes  to  man  the  material,  tools 
and  force. — Labor  puts  force  in  motion. — Labor  alone  is  pro- 
ductive. Now  to  recognize  the  right  of  territorial  property 
is  to  give  up  labor,  since  it  is  to  relinguish  the  means  of 
labor."  Mr.  George  says  in  the  chapter  on  "  Injustice  of  Pri- 
vate Property  in  Land,"  in  Progress  and  Poverty  :  "  land  on 
which  and  from  which  all  must  live.  The  recognition  of 
private  individual  proprietorship  of  land  is  the  denial  of  the 
natural  rights  of  other  individuals.  For  as  labor  can  not 
produce  without  the  use  of  land,  the  denial  of  the  equal 
right  to  the  use  of  land  is  necessarily  the  denial  of  the  right 
of  labor  to  its  produce." 

Proudhon's  third  argument  is  that  "  proscription  (or  long 
possession)  gives  no  title  to  property  ;  it  is  not  based  on  a 
just  title  ;  past  error  is  not  binding  on  the  future,"  p.  89. 

Mr.  George  says  on  307  of  Progress  and  Poverty  ;  "  Con- 
sider for  a  moment  the  utter  absurdity  of  the  titles,  by 
which  we  permit  it  to  be  passed  from  John  Doe  to  Richard 
Roe. . . .  Everywhere  not  to  a  right  which  obliges,  but  to  a 
force  which  compels,  and  when  a  title  rests  but  on  force,  no 
complaint  can  be  made  when  force  annuls  it." 

Proudhon's  conclusion  is  :  "The  earth  cannot  be  appro- 
priated," (p.  73  of  French  edition).  —  Mr.  George  says  : 
"  There  is  on  earth  no  power  which  can  rightfully  make  a 
grant  of  exclusive  ownership  of  land,"  (p.  304  of  Progress 
and  Poverty). 


33 


Proudhon  then  abuses  owners,  for  example,  citing  a  verse 
which  shows  how  first  comes  the  contractors  share,  then 
the  laborers,  then  the  capitalists  and  then  :  "  I  am  the 
proprietor.  I  take  the  whole,"  (p.  189). — Mr.  George  says  in 
Protection  and  Free  Trade:  "And  the  robber  that  takes 
all  that  is  left  is  private  property  in  land,"  (p.  285). — The 
number  of  these  comparisons  might  be  increased  very 
largely.  Finally,  in  his  picture  of  the  results,  Mr.  George 
returns  to  Considerant,  and  insists  with  him  upon  the  great 
advantages  to  individuals  arising  from  this  cooperation  and 
common  ownership  of  all  living  in  the  commune,  and  as  the 
picture  of  a  Utopia  one  is  as  beautiful  as  the  other.  We  see 
therefore  that  as  to  his  title,  problem,  its  solution,  the 
remedy  of  the  evil  and  the  result  Mr.  George  has  followed 
Considerant,  and  as  to  the  justification  of  the  remedy 
Proudhon. — Unfortunately  Proudhon  proves  too  much  ;  for 
as  I  showed  in  my  former  paper,  if  Mr.  George  has  demon- 
strated that  there  should  be  no  private  property  in  land, 
he  has  also  demonstrated  this  as  to  personal  property. — 
Proudhon  proclaimed  this,  and  it  was  the  chief  difference 
between  him  and  Considerant. 

If  we  delay  for  a  moment  to  call  in  mind  the  resemblances 
which  I  have  pointed  out  to  Proudhon  and  Considerant, — 
and  they  can  be  greatly  increased  if  any  one  will  take  the 
trouble  so  to  do,  by  comparing  these  books  in  the  Astor 
Library, — can  we  accept  the  generally  received  theory  as 
to  George's  intellectual  capacity  or  of  his  extraordinary 
devotion  to  humanity,  or  even  of  his  phenomenal  honesty  ? 
What  must  we  think  of  those  men  who  have  compared  his 
doctrines  to  those  of  Christ  ?  Is  it  not  an  insult  to  our  in- 
telligence to  dish  up  these  warmed-up  meats  from  which 
Europe  has  long  ago  turned  away  in  disgust,  as  the  heaven- 
born  manna  which  alone  can  preserve  the  New  World  ?  if 
the  ghosts  of  Messieurs  Proudhon  and  Considerant  were 
allowed  to  sit  on  the  stage  at  one  of  Mr.JGeorge's  meet- 


34 


ings,  would  not  his  remarks  be  often  interrupted  by  their 
indignant  chestnut-bells  ? 

But  to  resume:  What  success  had  this  theory  in  France  ? 
Babceuf  s  rude  announcement  of  it  was  the  closing  episode 
of  the  first  French  Revolution  and  made  Napoleon  I.  pos- 
sible ;  the  fear  of  it  sustained  the  Restoration  and  the  July 
Monarchy  ;  Proudhon  and  Considerant  were  in  the  Assem- 
bled of  the  1848  Republic,  and  Considerant  then  published 
his  socialism  above  cited,  and  announced  that  in  three  years 
the  social-democratic  republic  would  be  in  force;  in  far 
less  time  the  second  Empire  was  established,  as  necessary 
for  the  preservation  of  order. 

Since  then,  these  theories  have  in  Europe  passed  from 
the  stage  of  practical  politics  and  are  only  referred  to  by 
historians  as  showing  the  steps  by  which  modern  socialism, 
as  advocated  by  Karl  Marx  and  Lasalle  arose.  It  is  the 
oblivion  to  which  these  older  radical  thorists  have  been 
consigned  by  the  modern  communists  themselves,  which 
induced  the  French  bourgeoisie  to  support  the  present 
Republic.  If  therefore  this  seed  of  dragons'  teeth  could 
sprout  in  France  and  has  now  rotted  in  the  ground,  we 
need  not  fear  that  it  will  bear  fruit  in  this  much  more 
uncongenial  clime.  Nor  need  we  fear  that  the  people  will 
accept  a  despotism  in  order  to  escape  it;  the  true  propor- 
tions of  this  movement  will  be  known  soon  enough.  But 
we  must  fear  that  this  movement  will  excite  hostility 
against  the  workingmen  among  a  large  class  of  our  well- 
to-do  population,  especially  in  our  cities,  and  also  that  it 
will  induce  this  class  to  submit  with  excessive  patience  to 
the  increasing  growth  of  the  power  of  the  monopolists  and 
politicians,  for  fear  that  any  change  in  our  old-fashioned 
countrified  government  might  be  for  the  worse. 

But  this  revival  of  worn-out  Old-World  theories  is  also 
injurious  to  the  workingmen,  in  turning  them  irom  the  pur- 
suit of  the  theories  of  Lasalle  and  Karl  Marx,  many  of 


35 


which,  all  must  recognize,  have  a  certain  amount  of  justice. 
Those  writers  recognize  the  necessity  of  a  historical  devel- 
opment and  aim  at  improving  the  workingmen's  condition 
by  introducing  factory  regulations,  shorter  hours,  etc.,  as 
our  trades-unions'  circulars  above  cited  demanded.  To 
turn  back  the  hands  of  the  clock  for  forty  years  and  take  up 
these  impracticable  chimeras,  means  an  injury  to  the  real 
welfare  of  the  workingmen,  and  of  our  whole  people,  which 
it  is  difficult  to  under-estimate. 

The  dread  which  those  theories  excited  in  France,  so  as 
to  drive  men  to  accept  the  First  and  Second  Empire,  may 
also  be  a  warning  to  us  of  the  effect  which  even  a  moderate 
success  of  this  movement  at  the  polls,  would  have  upon 
capital  invested  in  this  City  and  State.  I  fear  that  a  vote 
of  even  20,000  will  be  sufficient  to  give  a  check  to  our  indus- 
tries, which  are  just  now  reviving  under  the  influence  of  gen- 
eral prosperity;  failing  trade  and  closing  factories  will  be  in 
proportion  to  the  success  of  this  movement,  and  the  only 
real  change  in  the  condition  of  the  working  men. 

There  is  another  benefit  which  we  derive  from  tracing 
Mr.  George's  ideas  to  their  source  :  When  we  see  how 
many  of  his  theories  he  has  evidently  taken  from  Considerant, 
who  advocated  the  co-operative  communes  with  all  land  in 
common,  we  are  able  to  understand  many  suggestions  of 
Mr.  George,  as  being  part  of  a  more  or  less  definite  intention 
of  realizing  some  such  scheme,  and  which  ideas  appear  dis- 
connected and  unintelligible,  if  we  consider  solely  his  in- 
tentions of  abolishing  rent  as  his  one  object,  with  which  he 
would  be  satisfied. 

Thus,  I  was  surprised  to  find  Mr.  George  advocating  the 
increase  of  the  power  of  our  Board  of  Aldermen.  He  says, 
in  the  interview  published  in  the  Sun  of  October  3  :  "New 
York  (city)  should  have  one  legislative  body  that  in  local 
affairs  would  have  sovereign  power."  There  was  no  demand 
for  this  in  the  platform,  nor  so  far  as  I  know  have  the  work- 


36 


ingmen  demanded  it  ;  the  whole  tendency  of  legislation  has 
been  to  deprive  this  Board  of  power  ;  Mr.  George  does  not 
suggest  any  manner  of  improving  its  character, — but  only 
wants  it  to  have  "  sovereign  power." — Without  stopping  to 
dwell  on  the  fact  that  if  Mr.  George  were  a  real  Democrat 
he  would  not  admit  that  any  government  was  "  sovereign '» 
over  the  people,  I  think  the  explanation  for  this  strange 
demand  is  that  it  is  an  essential  part  of  Considerant's  theory 
of  the  co-operative  commune.  This  absolute  local  govern- 
ment is  necessary  for  any  scheme  of  communism;  if  all  are  to 
enjoy  equally,  all  must  work  equally,  and  this  requires  strict 
supervision.  It  was  the  demand  of  the  Paris  communists;  the 
beautiful  Utopia  that  makes  Mr.  George's  book  so  attractive 
cannot  be  realized  without  it.  No  matter  how  much  he  may 
strive  to  keep  it  in  the  back-ground,  he  cannot  hide  the  cloven 
hoof.  Thus  he  says  on  page  296  of  Social  Questions,  that 
"  society  may  pass  into  a  co-operative  association,"  and  on 
page  410  of  Progress  and  Poverty :  "  Government  would 
change  its  character,  and  would  become  the  administration 
of  a  great  co-operative  society.  It  would  become  merely 
the  agency  by  which  the  common  property  was  administered 
for  the  common  benefit."  This  is  only  Considerant's  com- 
munal government ;  how  much  official  machinery  would  be 
necessary  in  New  York  to  realize  Mr.  George's  plans,  as  set 
out  for  example,  on  page  410  of  Progress  and  Poverty: 
"  This  revenue  arising  from  the  common  property  could  be 
applied  to  common  benefit,  as  were  the  revenues  of  Sparta. 
We  might  not  establish  public  tables — they  would  become 
unnecessary  ;  but  we  could  establish  public  baths,  museums, 
libraries,  gardens,  lecture  rooms,  music  and  dancing  halls, 
theatres,  universities,  technical  schools,  shooting  galleries,, 
play-grounds,  gymnasiums,  etc."  Society  attempts  some  of 
these  things  now  ;  how  does  it  realize  them  ?  Had  we  not 
better  get  our  present  undertakings  in  good  working  order, 
before  starting  out  on  such  unlimited  extensions  of  the 
system  ? 


37 


Moreover,  this  demand  for  one  sovereign  local  govern- 
ment, over  the  million  and  a  half  of  people  of  this  city, 
and  which  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  realization  of 
half  of  Mr.  George's  schemes,  presents  the  chief  objection  to 
all  that  is  hopeful  in  the  modern  labor  movement.  That 
movement  recognizes  the  necessity  of  trades  unions,  that 
they  have  come  to  stay,  that  in  their  proyer  development 
and  participation  in  public  affairs  lies  great  promise  for  the 
welfare  not  only  of  the  workingmen,  but  of  the  State;  and 
that  these  trade  organizations  should  be  entrusted  with 
powers  and  duties  and  form  part  of  our  body  politic,  as 
the  geographical  divisions  called  States  and  Counties 
made  up  the  Union  when  we  were  purely  an  agricultural 
community. 

Now  these  trades  unions  have  as  much  need  for  the  demo- 
cratic doctrine  of  wheels  within  wheels,  and  as  little  need 
for  a  sovereign  local  government  over  them,  as  the  States 
have  for  a  sovereign  and  therefore  unlimited  national  gov- 
ernment (see  Mr.  Bancroft's  Plea  for  the  Constitution),  and 
this  radical  difference  between  trades  unionists  and  socialists 
has  long  been  instinctively  recognized  in  labor  circles,  and 
the  contest  between  the  two  has  been  for  years  going  on 
with  varying  success  ;  see  the  following  citation  on 
page  602  of  the  Third  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics  of  New  York:  "To  confound  the 
trade  union  movement  with  the  political  movement  of 
the  Socialists  is  a  thorough  mistake,  the  difference  being 
that  while  the  trades  unions  are  organized  only  for 
the  purpose  of  protection  for  their  labor,  adapting  them- 
selves at  all  times  to  circumstances  and  conditions  as  well 
as  to  the  surroundings,  and  being  largely  influenced  thereby, 
the  socialistic  movement  aims  at  the  entire  reconstruction 
of  society  upon  their  principles,  is  satisfied  with  nothing 
less,  ignores  all  possible  reasonable  objections,  and  dis- 
parages trade  organizations,  recognizing  them  only  as  ob- 
stacles in  their  path  of  progress." 


33 


Now,  it  is  plain  that  Mr.  George  with  his  demand  for  a 
sovereign,  i.  e.  unlimited  local  government  belongs  to  the 
communist-socialistic  school,  —  as  every  faithful  desciple 
of  Proudhon  and  Considerant  should  ;  and  it  is  also  for  this 
reason  that  I  believe  that  workingmen,  who  believe  in 
trades  unions,  should  oppose  Mr.  George. 

Trades  unions  have  no  place  in  Mr.  George's  schemes  ; 
according  to  the  index,  they  are  not  mentioned  in  Progress 
and  Poverty  ;  in  Protection  and  Free  Trade  they  are  re- 
ferred to  three  times, — two  of  which  are  bare  mentions,  and 
the  third  (on  pages  322  and  323)  is  as  follows  :  "  Something 
can  be  done  in  this  way  for  those  within  such  organizations; 
but  it  is  after  all  very  little ....  This,  those  who  are  in- 
clined to  put  faith  in  the  power  of  trades-unionism  are  be- 
ginning to  see,  aud  the  logic  of  events  must  more  and  more 
lead  them  to  see." — Mr.  George  therefore  has  no  faith  in 
trades-unions. — Are  the  skilled  workingmen  then  going  to 
allow  their  organizations  to  be  used  for  this  man's  election  ? 
Have  they  not  had  enough  experience  with  theorists,  politi- 
cians aud  demagogues  (often  in  the  pay  of  employers)  who 
did  not  believe  in  their  unions  ?  Among  his  supporters  are 
found  men  whose  interests  are  identified  with  bodies  which 
have  always  opposed  trades  unions.  A  vote  for  Henry  George 
is  a  vote  against  the  Trades  Unions. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  workingmen,  as  members  of 
their  trades-unions,  would  make  a  demand  on  the  Democra- 
tic Party  for  recognition  of  their  representatives  in  the 
party's  councils,  they  would  before  long,  I  am  convinced, 
receive  due  attention,  and  be  able  to  have  an  influence 
on  legislation  and  choice  of  officers  proportionate  to  the 
importance  of  their  organizations.  The  demands  of  these 
unions  for  recognition  by  the  State,  and  for  a  certain 
amount  of  autonomy  in  their  internal  affairs,  is  justified  by 
all  the  Democratic  Fathers  in  their  advocacy  of  State 
Rights. 


39 


Or  else  the  workingmen  could  in  local  matters  go  into 
politics  by  themselves  and  seek  to  gain  the  practical  ob- 
jects which  their  constitutions  have  so  long  demanded;  for 
this  they  should  elect  members  of  the  Legislature,  instead 
of  having  their  Central  Committee,  as  it  has  to-day  done, 
prohibit  the  organizations  to  indorse  or  put  forward  candi- 
dates. There  is  where  the  source  of  evil  lies;  in  the  reck- 
less bad  laws  which  the  Legislatures  pass.  But  if  the  work- 
ingmen say  they  cannot  elect  Assemblymen,  because  they 
are  divided  into  so  many  districts  that  their  strength  is 
wasted,  then  they  should  strive  to  abolish  this  unnatural 
division  into  geographical  election  districts.  But  it  is  worse 
than  useless  for  workingmen  to  try  to  put  these  wild  theorists 
who  can  only  alarm  men  of  property  into  administrative 
offices.  * 

It  is  the  old  story  of  that  which  happened  in  Rome, 
where  the  wild  pleas  for  the  division  of  land  by  the  Gracchi 
drove  the  Romans  to  accept  a  plutocracy  and  finally  the 
Caesars.  As  above  mentioned,  it  was  the  similar  demand 
for  common  land,  which  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the  first 
and  second  French  Republics.  Can  we  not  profit  by  their 
experience  ? 

Can  we  not  do  these  things  better  in  America  ? 

This,  I  think,  will  be  the  turning  point  in  American  his- 
tory. No  republic  has  ever  yet  passed  from  the  condition 
of  an  agricultural  community  to  that  of  a  state  with  large 
cities,  without  being  plagued  by  demagogues — especially 
those  who  demanded  a  division  of  land — until  refuge  was 
taken  in  a  depotism. 

If  we  can  introduce  those  trade  organizations  in  a  peace- 


*  Under  the  Consolidation  Act  of  1882  the  men  who  assess  land  for  taxation, 
are  sworn  to  value  improved  and  unimproved  land  equally  at  its  selling  value. 
What  selling  value  has  city  property  if  the  actual  or  possible  improvements  are 
not  considered  ? 


4o 


able  and  orderly  manner  into  our  body  politic — a  feat  which 
no  state  has  yet  accomplished — and  satisfy  their  just  de- 
mands, I  believe  that  we  would  have  a  state,  which  might 
realize  some  of  Considerant's  beautiful  aspirations,  here  in 
America,  although  his  French  methods  are  impracticable. 
America  must  find  ;its  own'' way.  \  Let  us  remember  what 
Emerson  said : 

"We  live  in  a  new  and  exceptional  age.  America  is 
another  name  for  Opportunity.  Our  whole  history  appears 
like  a  last  effort  of  the  Divine  Providence  in  behalf  of  the 
ihuman  race." 


